Games are too easy and too expensive!

    As I sit patiently until the 1st of September for my copy of Persona 3 FES I recall the reason I purchased it in the first place...
 
     No, not because of the Endurance Run (Well that is probably part of it) but because I knew it would last me a long time and was cheap (20 bucks :3)
The reason why I came down a generation back to my PS2 is because when I heard "Batman: Arkham Asylum" was coming out I was excited to say the least. As I looked into it more though, I began to realize that a 12 hour ride was not worth the 60 dollars I might have to put down for it. I could get a lot more entertainment out of a cheaper game I'd never played before! 
 
      So, why are games getting so easy and so short and so expensive? Do game developers know that games are becoming shorter? Or is the difficulty level so low that it's a breeze to get through, so we never die, and we never have to start over. Do you want more health bars and less regenerating health?  Are games' graphics are taking up so much space on the discs that there isn't enough room for more gameplay?  Would you guys like to see less graphically intense games with longer times or more pretty games that are short?  Are you happy with the pricing of games today? Do you think you're getting your money's worth?
      
Forum, why is this? There's too many questions here and I want to know what you guys think.

    As I sit patiently until the 1st of September for my copy of Persona 3 FES I recall the reason I purchased it in the first place...
 
     No, not because of the Endurance Run (Well that is probably part of it) but because I knew it would last me a long time and was cheap (20 bucks :3)
The reason why I came down a generation back to my PS2 is because when I heard "Batman: Arkham Asylum" was coming out I was excited to say the least. As I looked into it more though, I began to realize that a 12 hour ride was not worth the 60 dollars I might have to put down for it. I could get a lot more entertainment out of a cheaper game I'd never played before! 
 
      So, why are games getting so easy and so short and so expensive? Do game developers know that games are becoming shorter? Or is the difficulty level so low that it's a breeze to get through, so we never die, and we never have to start over. Do you want more health bars and less regenerating health?  Are games' graphics are taking up so much space on the discs that there isn't enough room for more gameplay?  Would you guys like to see less graphically intense games with longer times or more pretty games that are short?  Are you happy with the pricing of games today? Do you think you're getting your money's worth?
      
Forum, why is this? There's too many questions here and I want to know what you guys think.

Because the average consumer doesn't have enough time or enough skill to play a 60+ hr difficult game like Persona. The majority of games that are made today cater to the average consumer. There. Logic.  *Insert rant against "casuals" here*
 
However, I can feel your pain. That's why when I make a game purchase at full price I usually only buy ones that will last for more than 10 hours. Of course, if you want hard and long games, you need only to purchase niche or older titles. Like Persona.

From what I've gathered, it mainly has to do with the production costs getting out of control.  They can't make longer games because they're spending so much just to make a really pretty 5 to 10 hour game to begin with.  
 
As far as them getting too easy, that's just a move toward accessibility I guess.  They want a more mainstream audience so they have a bigger market to recoup the costs, and turn a larger profit.

Its because of your mustache, thats why.

It might also have to do with stuff like how some mechanics (e.g. Lives, health bars etc.) that used to hinder the player are now fairly absent in modern games.
 
I really try to play games slowly now-a-days; like I do every single side mission, exploration etc possible before proceeding just because I don't want to finish the game too quickly. Also I try to factor in replayability with games when I consider buying. As a result my game collection is alot smaller than it used be.

" Its because of your mustache, thats why. "

12 hours isn't that short.

" Because the average consumer doesn't have enough time or enough skill to play a 60+ hr difficult game like Persona."

Production costs getting higher

Speaking from my own experience, when I was younger, I loved complicated games. Give me an RPG with hella stat management, 60+ hours gameplay, I was happy.
 
Now, I have much less time, and if I do have time, I want to spend it well. So when I open up a game and get hit with a barebones tutorial, dozens of gameplay mechanics and a high level of difficulty, i'm instantly put off. Not because I lack skill but because this piece of entertainment is now a HASSLE. I have to learn so much about how it plays, and how to excel at it, I might as well learn a new language.
 
Nowadays, I play pick-up-and-play games. I'll have a few rounds in Street Fighter IV, or a few rounds in COD4. Less time, same level of enjoyment. 
 
To answer your question, I think game developers aim for the 18-24 age bracket more and more these days, as well as casual gamers, which means difficulty and length has to be cut.

" @ArbitraryWater said:

" Because the average consumer doesn't have enough time or enough skill to play a 60+ hr difficult game like Persona."

To be fair, I don't think Persona (I think you're talking about 3?) is too difficult, but I could certainly see it being overwhelming to someone who doesn't play a lot of games. "

" It might also have to do with stuff like how some mechanics (e.g. Lives, health bars etc.) that used to hinder the player are now fairly absent in modern games.  I really try to play games slowly now-a-days; like I do every single side mission, exploration etc possible before proceeding just because I don't want to finish the game too quickly. Also I try to factor in replayability with games when I consider buying. As a result my game collection is alot smaller than it used be. "

Games haven't got shorter. 
 
RPG's have got fewer.

If you play games like I do, you would find them cheaper. I usually play games later in their life, so they're less expensive. I remember paying $70 for games in the 90's. As for shorter, I don't see it. They're fine with what they do. Entertainment per hour vs. the dollar amount is fine.

" @TheMustacheHero: How many times do think you've had to use that picture? "

 Games are fairly cheap when you consider the production costs and what they used to cost. I remember the price for a new release could have been $79.99 a generation back. As for games getting easier and shorter, they're certainly getting easier to accommodate "casual" gamers, but the average 8-12 hour single player length hasn't changed much as far as I can tell. There are still some lengthy games, too. Star Ocean: The Last Hope packs at least 60 hours of content (including some excessively long cut scenes) and Dragon Age will most likely clock in at around the same.
 
 If you ask me, the video game market is a lot more consumer friendly nowadays. Though buying old games will always be a good strategy, because they lower in price very rapidly yet are still the games they were when they first launched.

12 hours is not that short, but if you feel strongly about it, just wait until the price drops to something more reasonable.

" 12 hours is not that short, but if you feel strongly about it, just wait until the price drops to something more reasonable. "

but, if games are longer and you don't have a lot of time to play them wouldn't that save you so much money just playing the same game when you get a chance? I mean with all those breaks in between it wouldn't ever get stale would it?  Also, would you guys like to see less graphically intense games with longer times or more pretty games that are short? "

"Also, would you guys like to see less graphically intense games with longer times or more pretty games that are short? "

I get an average of 10 hrs a week to play games now. Sometimes more sometimes none at all. So I really don't have time to play 40+ hr games anymore. If you don't want to pay full price for a game then wait a couple months for the price to drop.

" @ArbitraryWater: I guess I would say it's hard in the sense that you're going to die a lot.  You've probably played more current generation and last generation JRPGs than I have, though, so I'll defer to you.  "

" @EvilTwin said:

" @ArbitraryWater: I guess I would say it's hard in the sense that you're going to die a lot.  You've probably played more current generation and last generation JRPGs than I have, though, so I'll defer to you.  "

Me? Play current and last gen J-RPGs? HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA. (no offense) I did play enough Final Fantasy XII to know that I didn't like it, and I have looked at stuff like Blue Dragon, but I can hardly be considered an expert or even a fan of the genre. I like SMT and I like the SNES Final Fantasy games, and that's pretty much it.   But I do know this: Persona 3 is not an easy game. It's appearently not as hard as SMT:Nocturne (which I would like to get my hands on, if not for the staggeringly high price), but it can hardly be considered a cakewalk. It's just not as grindy as some older games. "

" @TheMustacheHero said:

"Also, would you guys like to see less graphically intense games with longer times or more pretty games that are short? "

I'm not at all opposed to developers scaling back on budgets.  Even with big releases.  Not every game has to look like Killzone 2 for me to be interested.  And with smaller budget games, they have the opportunity to come out at budget prices as well.  "

I see what you're saying..but why can't other games be like Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts which came out at a $40.00 price point. That was a pretty dang good looking game too :/ "

When looking for a game, the number one thing I look for is replayability. "Will I get my money's worth?" Most RPGs will provide a lot of game for your dollar, but they can also be a bit of a turn-off for the modern, casual gamer with their convoluted leveling systems and so forth. Which means there will be less games with 60+ hour content and more games like COD4 which provides 6-10 hours in single-player (though longevity comes in the form of multiplayer). That's just the way things are, I guess.

" When looking for a game, the number one thing I look for is replayability. "Will I get my money's worth?" Most RPGs will provide a lot of game for your dollar, but they can also be a bit of a turn-off for the modern, casual gamer with their convoluted leveling systems and so forth. Which means their will be less games with 60+ hour content and more games like COD4 which provides 6-10 hours in single-player (though longevity comes in the form of multiplayer). That's just the way things are, I guess. "

SMT:Nocturne is only 30 dollars on Amazon.com...

"  So, why are games getting so easy and so short and so expensive?  "

 Are you playing games the first time on "Normal"? If that is the case, then bump the difficulty up. When I play a game I will usually start off on a higher difficulty like "Hard".

"  Are you playing games the first time on "Normal"? If that is the case, then bump the difficulty up. When I play a game I will usually start off on a higher difficulty like "Hard". "

" why can't other games be like Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts which came out at a $40.00 price point. That was a pretty dang good looking game too :/ "

I don't buy games frequently. I normally buy no more than 5 games a year because I am very selective and check review sites and find the best deals so I normally get my value for money. Any games I want to play but arn't sure whether I would replay it I rent. So this isn't a huge problem for me but I think some prices for games are ridiculous.  As has been mentioned before in this tread, Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts was cheaper at early retail and I got much more enjoyment out of that than some full price games I have played before. As for games getting easier I'm not too sure about. Granted, some games are more challenging than others but personally I wouldn't say generally games are getting easier.

This is why I love Bethesda's RPG's. I'm guaranteed to get at least 30 hours out of it, if not a few hundred.
 
Well worth the asking price.

With Batman AA I was surprised how much playtime I was and still am getting out of the game.

If you want a cheap, new, hard as fuck game, go and get Henry Hatsworth for the DS.
 
It will destroy you.

I used to think it was because they needed to fit HD content onto a 360 DVD.  I mean look at the longer games - Oblivion has like 3 dungeons repeated (Cave, Ruins, Fort).  Fallout 3 is 50% flat land and subway stations.  While shorter games try and focus on multiplayer where repeated maps are normal.
Now that I think about it again though, thats probably a tiny piece of it.
 
I just think that's what people want.  I think people like easier and shorter.
People want to finish the games and feel like they are good at them.
Most people aren't like we (probably) are - wanting to hide away for a while and dive into some insanely long or difficult game.
As gaming goes more mainstream I think it's going to be more gaming in quick bite-sized pieces with little input and big output.
 
Games have been getting easier for a long time, seeing the end of an NES cart was a big deal to me and now I can't remember the last game I didn't finish.
"Finish" I realized now that I say 'finished a game'.  When I was younger it was 'I BEAT the game'.. that alone says a lot to me.
You might say it's becase we got older, but I bet if I put in Contra right now it would still kick my ass - and I wouldnt "finish" it, I would Beat that damn game.
 
I don't blame them, if that is what people want. I must want it too, I still buy games.
 
Long story short:  To reach a wider audience gaming has to become more and more accessible and is showing no signs of slowing down.

the price of the average videogames is too high (60 euros) and as I always say, 60 freaking euros is not the same as 60 dollars. anyways the duration of the videogames has come down quite much, but I don't think it is because of space, I think it is because of the amount of time the developers take to make a long game such as half-life 2. If we talk about valve, they solved this by making short episodes.

Seem's like today's crowd doesn't mind the idea of paying premium prices for what essentially is shallow games with not a lot of depth content-wise.  Understandable given the circumstances of many, however I can't help but feel disappointed that this is happening to games today.  Usually I love the idea of getting a good game, and spending a long time in it, always finding something new to do in it. 
 
Unfortunately it doesn't happen anymore, and for most people I believe the reasoning is more that they just want to finish a game so they can move on to another one.  Is society really that impatient that they cannot just play through a good game, save it and pick it up later?  Are people so obsessed with finishing as many games as possible, and thus demand games to be shorter in order to achieve this goal?
 
Whatever the main reason really is, I for one will not mind being part of the niche crowd that still enjoy being able to go through a game, and not just finish it.  For now, if your into FPS's that are harder than the norm, it seems that the new Operation Flashpoint game should provide a worthwhile experience.  I'm definitely going to play it in hardcore mode.  Gametrailers has a video explaining what hardcore mode is in this game (it's not just an arbitrary bump in AI health or AI difficulty).

 Games are indeed shorter now and hard does seem to be the new normal but honestly, who can blame them? Everyone seems to be focusing on presentation these days, it's either a short Mona Lisa or a long doodle, if you know what I mean. Personally, I'd take a long doodle any day but I can understand that developers can't deliver a long, visually stunning game, without extreme effort and expense on their part.  
 
Although, don't these short games just increase second-hand circulation? Most casual gamers I know would buy said short game, play it and then sell it to their nearest Game Stop. The shorter the game, the quicker the gamer gets bored and sells it. Shouldn't developers be making longer games, put more in them to encourage their buyers to hang on to them? I don't like to see hard-working developers losing money but it does seem like they're shooting themselves in the foot, doesn't it?     

Im sorry, but seriously. Do you believe that games are ACTUALLY getting shorter? I mean, they last twice as much as they did during the PSX-N64 era, and as much as they did in the PS2-NGC-XBX.
 
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time can be beated, with 100% of the side quests done in under 15 hours "No Speed Run".
The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker can be beaten in 20 hours, with just the quest done, and for an adventure RPG its the standard. 
 
Goldeneye 64 was 4 hours long. Standard FPS time for a first timer now is 7 hours. 
 
Adventure games used to be 6-8 hours long. Now they are 8-12. Just look at games as Resident Evil. First time in RE used to be 8 hours, and second time used to be 3 top. Now, first time is over 15 hours unless you rush your way. And seconds, if not rushing are between 8-10 (and you can also achieve less than 5 if you rush).
 
So no, I beg to differ, but I seriously doubt games are actually getting shorter.
 
Though I do agree that some if not most games have been lacking in the difficulty department, reason why I now play 9 out of 10 games in Hard from the get go, when I used to play them in Normal just a few years ago.

They do feel shorter these days (apart from the odd good RPG), not only that, they don't seem as fun as they use to be. You might play a game a lot but there's a rare moment when you think "This is going to a timeless classic!". It's quite hard to develop a genre defining game since everything's already been done before albeit the slight twist. Have you played Castlevania SOTN? That's one game I've played countless times.

" @EvilTwin: That's not really true, I mean look at Rage, if you watch the interviews they have for it, the developers are saying the graphics are very cheap and so they can make a very long game. So the whole: They make it look pretty so they sacrifice time, that's not how it works, they've solved that issue already, no I think it's the fact that they just want to make a lot more in the profit. "

I'm still playing Batman because for some reason solving those riddles is damn addicting. After that I'm going to replay on hard.

The problem with short single-player narratives is that there's just about no reason to actually buy it if you're strapped for cash; especially if it's one of those games where all you care about is the story, and you don't see yourself playing it over and over again.
 
Not to get into this discussion too deep, but I'm definitely of the opinion that, while long game does not equal good game, getting bang for your buck and having an experience that is going to last you literally hundreds of hours while still being a great game is about as good as you can get. Look at a game like Fallout 3. Two full playthroughs at over 100 hours, each (well, maybe less for my first playthrough, but certainly more for my second) makes for one damn bang-for-the-buck game. Probably my most shining example is the Pokemon series. I've played each generation of games for well over 100 hours each. Nearing 200 in Pokemon Diamond; same in Emerald. That just feels insane to me, but they're really fun games.
 
Difficulty is not a problem to me. I don't play a game for its difficulty, ever. The only game I step up to the hardest level is Half-Life 2, and only because I've played so damn much of that, too, that it's necessary. I tend to discard, or never come back to, games with a frustrating difficulty level.